Can anyone explain why a large number of old reviews ars showing as new ones?
I don't wish to have a pop but all the ones I've recently noticed are by "Just a Quick Pint, Then I'm Off".
Printable View
Can anyone explain why a large number of old reviews ars showing as new ones?
I don't wish to have a pop but all the ones I've recently noticed are by "Just a Quick Pint, Then I'm Off".
This is me catching up, using the 'BITE migration tool' which gives old reviews the correct date rather than incorrectly placing them as 'new' reviews at the top of the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqualung
NB - I'm sure that Dave can PM anybody with a link if they don't already have one.
Until a few months back I was doing the same (ROBCamra also). Also useful for correcting glaring howlers in older reviews of any pub as you can manipulate the tool to point at any pub in the database :DQuote:
Originally Posted by rpadam
OK, I think I understand that so presumably this is something that will eventually discontinue.
I certainly don't feel the need to use it myself.
People use this site for differing reasons, but the reasons for all added content enhance the site. I migrated all of my BITE reviews when I first joined so that they were all in one place and also to spite the evil dwarf that ran BITE as he was a complete tit. This act also bolstered the reviews on this site by 2000+ which I think can only be seen as a good thing. These erroneously timed reviews only stay out of sync until 23:59 on the day they are posted so I don’t really see a problem.
It wasn't a problem as such! Possibly a minor irritation as it was difficult to pick out any genuine new reviews posted on the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongers
I did have some BITE reviews, but they all got removed after I made a post about a pub that fiollowed complaints about it never being updated that went along the lines of "The site owners are completely useless and are only interested in flogging their rubbish Premium Pub Subscription to gullible Landlords". What on earth was wrong with that????
No apologies from me, but I would mention the following points to consider regarding the catching up from my notes from the second half of 2013:
1) Quite a few new pubs have been added to the site.
2) Quite a few closed pubs have been indicated as such on the site.
3) Quite a few 'virgin' pubs now have a review.
4) Quite a few pubs now have a relatively recent review (albeit dating from the second half of 2013, rather than 2007, 2008, 2009...).
5) Quite a few pubs now have a review from a second reviewer; and, whatever you think about my reviews, this does allow any site visitor to have a second opinion.
I wouldn't wish to discourage anybody from adding a review to this site, even if it is a few months old, and particularly if the 'BITE migration tool' is used to date the reviews correctly.